DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/16/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on June 16, 2026. Claim(s) 1, 9, 13, and 16 are indicated as amended (however there doesn’t appear to be any change to claim 9). No additional claims have been added. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 9, 13, and 16 filed on June 16, 2026.
The amendments to claims 1, 16, and 19 have addressed the objections previously submitted.
The applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims, as presented in the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, which previously indicated the claims as being anticipated by Lawler (US Patent No. 6247235).
The applicant’s amendments to claim 13 are sufficient to overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, which applied Lawler (US Patent No. 6247235).
The applicant’s amendments to claim 16 are sufficient to overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, which applied Lawler (US Patent No. 6247235) in view of Cheng (US Patent No. 608915).
However, the amendments are not considered to have overcome the art of record. Please see the updated rejections set forth in the present action that address the claims as filed with the newly presented limitations through amendments.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed June 16, 2026 have been fully considered.
Claim Objections: Applicants’ amendments have addressed some of the claim objections.
Claim 1 and 16 rejections: Applicants’ remarks regarding the previous 102 rejection have been fully considered. Applicant remarks “claims 1 and 16…characterize the ‘first direction’ as ‘extending from the second end of the boy toward the first end of the body…” However, the claim reads that the device is “moved in a first direction” and then that first direction is defined or given an initial orientation/reference. As such, the prior art could then be moved in a second direction, opposite that first such that “the second cutting edge configured to cut the sheathing from the electrical cable upon the device being moved in a second direction opposite the first direction…” Please see the annotated figure below which is included in the rejection:
PNG
media_image1.png
603
1011
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The rejection has been updated to apply this interpretation of the claim language. As such, the applicant is not yet considered to be in conditions for allowance.
Claim 13 rejection: Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered. The rejection set forth within the present action will address the newly added limitation of “the remainder of the sheathed wire cable extending through the aperture.” The applicant remarks that the “structure is neither shown or suggested by Lawler which requires that the sheath be cut when the remainder of the sheathed cable no longer extends through the aperture.” The examiner respectfully disagrees, as Lawler’s disclosure does not require explicitly the configuration and operation exemplified within the drawings. As Lawler discloses the structure presented within the applicant’s claims, pursuant of MPEP 2112.02.I, a prior art device may anticipate or make obvious the claimed process if the device carries out the process during normal operation. See the updated rejections set forth within the action.
Claim 16: The application argues the modification of Lawler in view of Cheng would require a reconstruction of Lawler. In response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Cheng is there not to teach a reconstruction of Lawler, but a parallel cutting edges in place of a singular.
The applicant’s remarks and arguments but are not found persuasive. Please see the updated rejection set forth in the present action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lawler (US Patent No. 6247235).
In regards to claim 1, Lawler discloses
a device (sheathing stripper and sheathing cutter tool 10, fig. 1-21) for removing a sheathing from an electrical cable, the device comprising:
a body (at least outer tube 12, sheathing slitter blade retention tube 14, and cutter blade retention tube 18, fig. 1-21) having a first end (sheathing slitter blade retention tube 14, fig. 1-5, 19-10, 19-21),
a second end (cutter blade retention tube 18, fig. 1-4, 13-16, and 21) opposite the first end (sheathing slitter blade retention tube 14, fig. 1-5, 19-10, 19-21),
a longitudinal portion (outer tube 12, fig. 1-21) therebetween, and
a passage (see fig. 1/2 - ann. 1) extending through the longitudinal portion from the first end to the second end;
the second end (cutter blade retention tube 18, fig. 1-4, 13-16, and 21) defining a first terminal portion of a channel (see fig. 1/2 - ann. 1) extending along at least a portion of the longitudinal portion of the body, the channel extending adjacent to the passage (see fig. 1/2 - ann. 1);
a first cutting edge (sheathing slitter-blade 16, fig. 1-5, 19-21) disposed within the passage (see fig. 1/2 - ann. 1), the first cutting edge (sheathing slitter-blade 16, fig. 1-5, 19-21) configured to cut the sheathing of the electrical cable extending through the passage (see fig. 19) upon the device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12) being moved in a first direction extending from the second end of the body toward the first end of the body (fig. 20); and
PNG
media_image2.png
314
854
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21) disposed at an angle (perpendicular, see fig. 1) to the first cutting edge (sheathing slitter-blade 16, fig. 1-5, 19-21) at a second terminal portion of the channel (see fig. 1/2 - ann. 1) opposite the first terminal portion,
the second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21) disposed outside of the passage (see fig. 13 and 16; col. 5 lines 23-39),
col. 5 lines 23-29: Referring to FIGS. 13-16, the sheathing cutter-blade retention tube 18 includes a truncated end 18a. The truncated end 18a includes an opening 18b on the top side of the tube 18. Recesses 18d are provided on either side of the opening 18b within the cutter-blade retention tube 18. The recesses are sized to receive the sheathing cutter-blade 20 ends 20b and the cutter-blade is retained between the cutter-blade retention tube 18 and the outer tube 12.
PNG
media_image3.png
304
524
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21) configured to cut the sheathing from the electrical cable upon the device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12) being moved in a second direction opposite the first direction with the sheathing extending from the passage and into the channel (see fig. 1/2 - ann. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
603
1011
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Note:
As Lawler is a hand tool, a user would be able to pull the tool in a multitude of directions (parallel, perpendicular, acute, obtuse) relative to each other in order to be in a comfortable position to strip and/or cut the sheathing of a wire assembly. A skilled artisan would recognize Lawler would be fully capable of being pulled in a direction opposite a first in order to cut a sheathing from a wire assembly, as it provides the structure necessary to accommodate the method step.
In regards to claim 2, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 1, wherein the first cutting edge (sheathing slitter-blade 16, fig. 1-5, 19-21) has an arcuate profile (see fig. 1-5, 19-21).
In regards to claim 3, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 1, wherein the second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21) is linear (see fig. 1-4, 12, 21).
In regards to claim 4, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 1, wherein the angle is orthogonal (perpendicular/90 degrees is an orthogonal angle, see fig. 1-2).
In regards to claim 5, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 1, further comprising an impingement (edges of recesses 18d, fig. 1, 13, 15 and 16) disposed in the channel proximate to the second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21).
In regards to claim 6, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 5, wherein the impingement (edges of recesses 18d, fig. 1, 13, 15 and 16) is radially offset from the second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21).
In regards to claim 7, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 5, wherein the impingement (edges of recesses 18d, fig. 1, 13, 15 and 16) is configured to restrain (by being part of the device structure) a material for cutting by the second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21).
In regards to claim 8, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 1, wherein the first terminal portion of the channel and the second terminal portion of the channel have a same centerline (see fig. 2 – ann. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
164
786
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 9, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 1, wherein the channel bends at an angle such that the first terminal portion of the channel is angularly offset from the second terminal portion of the channel by a predetermined amount (see fig. 16 – ann. 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
266
870
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 12, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 1, wherein the longitudinal portion (outer tube 12, fig. 1-21) defines a longitudinal axis and the first and second directions are parallel to the longitudinal axis (see fig. 1/2 – ann. 2).
PNG
media_image6.png
550
1478
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawler (Patent No. 6247235).
In regards to claim 13, Lawler teaches
a method for removing a sheath from a sheathed wire cable, the method comprising: inserting the sheathed wire cable through an aperture (opening at end of retention tube 14) of a device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12); moving the device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12) in a first direction, wherein a first cutting edge (sheathing slitter-blade 16, fig. 1-5, 19-21) slits a portion of the sheath along a longitudinal length of the sheath as the device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12) is moved in the first direction (fig. 19);
pulling the portion of the sheath away from a remainder of the sheathed wire cable with the remainder of the sheathed wire cable extending through the aperture (see in fig. 19, as half of the wire is inside of the tool, and the other half is extended outside of the opening of tube 14);
PNG
media_image2.png
314
854
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and moving the device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12) in a second direction opposite the first direction, wherein a second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21) of the device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12) cuts the portion of the sheath so as to detach the portion of the sheath from the remainder of the sheathed wire cable wire (fig. 21) with the remainder of the sheathed wire cable extending through the aperture (so while Lawler’s fig. shows the wire sheath in a certain arrangement, a longer cable could still extend through the device and extend through the aperture; Lawler provides the structure capable of operating in the described manner).
PNG
media_image1.png
603
1011
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As Lawler is a hand tool, a user would be able to pull the tool in a multitude of directions (parallel, perpendicular, acute, obtuse) relative to each other in order to be in a comfortable position to strip and/or cut the sheathing of a wire assembly. A skilled artisan would recognize Lawler would be fully capable of being pulled in a direction opposite a first in order to cut the sheathing from a wire assembly, as it provides the structure necessary to accommodate the method step.
In regards to claim 14, Lawler discloses
the method of claim 13, wherein prior to moving the device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12) in the second direction the method further comprises: engaging the portion with an impingement (edges of recesses 18d, fig. 1, 13, 15 and 16; while moving the wire sheathing, it would come into contact with the sides of tool channel, including the impingements).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawler in view of Eisele et al. (US PG Pub No. 20230010340).
In regards to claim 10, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 1, but fails to disclose the body further comprises “a magnet.”
Eisele et al discloses a cable-shaving tool, which includes a magnet:
[0013]:… The cable-shaving tool may further include a first magnet secured in the first housing shell and a second magnet secured in the second housing shell wherein the first contacts the second magnet when the lid is in the closed position, holding the cable-shaving tool in the closed position when moving the cable-shaving tool along the length of the cable.
[0056] In one embodiment shown in the exploded view of FIG. 16 and the housing lid interior surface in FIGS. 14 and 15, the shaving tool 10 includes at least one first magnet 50 disposed in a magnet recess 54 of the housing bottom 30 and at least one second magnet 52 disposed in a magnet recess 56 of the housing lid 20. The at least one first and second magnet are positioned adjacent one another when the lid 20 is in the closed position, providing secure closure of the tool.
Lawler and Eisele are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wires stripping apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lawler and provided the magnets of Eisele in the casing/frame halves in order to facilitate secure closure of the tool while in use (Eisele [0056]).
Claims 11 and 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawler (US Patent No. 6247235) in view of Cheng (US Patent No. 608915).
In regards to claim 11, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose further comprising “a wire stripping assembly disposed at” the second end (cutter blade retention tube 18, fig. 1-4, 13-16, and 21) of the body, the “wire stripping assembly comprising a first set of parallel facing cutting edges; and
a second set of parallel facing cutting edges offset from the first set, wherein the second set of parallel facing cutting edges is parallel to the first set.”
Cheng discloses a wirestripper with two ends, with first cutting edge (cutter blade 115) and second cutting edge (cutting edge 151 of cutter blade 15).
PNG
media_image7.png
686
538
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Cheng also discloses an additional wire stripping assembly (at least clamping plates 14 with serrated portions 142 on working side wall 141) with a first and second set of parallel facing cutting edges (serrated portions 142, see fig. 1 – ann. 1) which are parallel relative to each other.
PNG
media_image8.png
686
1184
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Cheng and Lawler are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of endeavor, wire strippers with multiple blades/cutting edges distributed between ends of the tool.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lawler in view of Cheng, and add an additional wire stripping assembly including first and second sets of parallel facing cutting edges to second end of the tool, increasing the tools operational compacity and versatility, as the clamping plates and elements that form the stripping assembly help protect the wire from damage during tool operation (Cheng col. 2 lines 45-52).
In regards to claim 16, Lawler discloses
a device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12) comprising:
a body (at least outer tube 12, sheathing slitter blade retention tube 14, and cutter blade retention tube 18, fig. 1-21) having a first end (sheathing slitter blade retention tube 14, fig. 1-5, 19-10, 19-21),
a second end (cutter blade retention tube 18, fig. 1-4, 13-16, and 21) opposite the first end, and
a passage (see fig. 1/2 - ann. 1) extending through a longitudinal portion (outer tube 12, fig. 1-21) from the first end to the second end;
the second end (cutter blade retention tube 18, fig. 1-4, 13-16, and 21) defining a first terminal portion of a channel extending along at least a longitudinal portion of the body, the channel extending adjacent to the passage (see fig. 1/2 - ann. 1);
a first cutting edge (sheathing slitter-blade 16, fig. 1-5, 19-21) disposed within the passage (see fig. 1/2 - ann. 1), the first cutting edge (sheathing slitter-blade 16, fig. 1-5, 19-21) configured to cut a sheathing of an electrical cable extending through the passage when the device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12) is moved in a first direction extending from the second end of the body toward the first end of the body;
PNG
media_image2.png
314
854
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21) disposed at an angle to the first cutting edge (sheathing slitter-blade 16, fig. 1-5, 19-21) at a second terminal portion of the channel opposite the first terminal portion, the second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21) disposed outside of the passage, the second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21) configured to cut the sheathing from the electrical cable when the device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12) is moved in a second direction opposite the first direction with the sheathing extending from the passage and into the channel.
PNG
media_image1.png
603
1011
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lawler fails to explicitly disclose further comprising “a wire stripping assembly disposed at” the second end (cutter blade retention tube 18, fig. 1-4, 13-16, and 21) of the body, the “wire stripping assembly comprising a first set of parallel facing cutting edges; and
a second set of parallel facing cutting edges offset from the first set, wherein the second set of parallel facing cutting edges is parallel to the first set.”
Cheng discloses a wirestripper with two ends, with first cutting edge (cutter blade 115) and second cutting edge (cutting edge 151 of cutter blade 15).
Cheng also discloses an additional wire stripping assembly (at least clamping plates 14 with serrated portions 142 on working side wall 141) with a first and second set of parallel facing cutting edges (serrated portions 142, see fig. 1 – ann. 1) which are parallel relative to each other.
PNG
media_image9.png
686
1184
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Cheng and Lawler are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of endeavor, wire strippers with multiple blades/cutting edges distributed between ends of the tool.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lawler in view of Cheng, and add an additional wire stripping assembly including first and second sets of parallel facing cutting edges to second end of the tool, increasing the tools operational compacity and versatility, as the clamping plates and elements that form the stripping assembly help protect the wire from damage during tool operation (Cheng col. 2 lines 45-52).
In regards to claim 17, Lawler as modified discloses
the device of claim 16, wherein the first set and second set of parallel facing cutting edges share a centerline (see fig. 1 – ann. 2).
PNG
media_image10.png
686
1141
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 18, Lawler as modified discloses
the device of claim 16, wherein the first set of parallel facing cutting edges is spaced by a first distance and the second set of parallel facing cutting edges is spaced by a second distance less than the first distance (as the sets are biased by springs 143, it’s possible that an object could push one set of edges apart against the spring, causing the spacing to be greater than the other set).
In regards to claim 19, Lawler as modified discloses
the device of claim 16, wherein the wire stripping assembly further comprises an opening adjacent to a first end of the first set of parallel facing cutting edges to allow insertion of an insulated wire therebetween (the spacing between the serrated portions 142 constitutes an “opening” that allows the insertion of an insulated wire therebetween; see fig. 1 of Cheng).
In regards to claim 20, Lawler as modified discloses
the device of claim 16, wherein a first cutting edge (first serrated portion 142) from the first set of parallel facing cutting edges and a first cutting edge (second serrated portion 142) from the second set of parallel facing cutting edges are defined by a first component (clamping plates 14 fit into chamber 113), and a second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21) from the first set and a second cutting piece from the second set are defined by a second component (clamping plates fit into chamber 123) fixed relative to the first component (they are opposite each other in the tool; see fig. 1).
Claims 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawler (US Patent No. 6247235) in view of Liversidge (US PG Pub No. 20180226776).
In regards to claim 15, Lawler as modified discloses
the method of claim 13, but fails to explicitly disclose prior to moving the device in the second direction the method further comprises: rotating the device 90 degrees in a radial direction.
Liversidge, which discloses a cable stripping tool, teachings rotating a tool:
[0031] The facets of the cutting end of the blade 28 lie at an angle to the axis of the respective channel 22, 23 so that on pushing the cable end into the opening 24, 25 and rotating the tool 10 around the cable 2, the blade 28 performs a helical cutting action, in effect threading itself along the cable 2 while partly cutting and partly shearing a strip 30 of the adjacent layer of the cable 2.
Lawler and Liversidge are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wires stripping apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the wire stripping method of Liversedge to Lawler, and rotated the tool during the stripping process, either to create a helical cutting action (Liversidge [0031]), or adjust the positioning of the device for easier use by the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights